Negotiating the <i>Multi</i> in Multilingualism and Multiliteracies: Undergraduate Students in Vancouver, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article poses the following research question: How do multilingual students in higher education negotiate the multi in their multilingualism and multiliteracies? The article presents data from a qualitative study conducted with eight multilingual undergraduate university students in which the participants describe their complex multilingualism and literacy practices in interviews and provide samples of their formal and less formal literacies for analysis. Findings show that participants creatively use their multilingual and multiliterate competencies in safe informal contexts, but in high-stakes academic contexts they relegate these competencies to conform to institutional expectations of standard academic writing in English. Analysis involves an interweaving of several theoretical perspectives: multilingualism as something combined and hybrid rather than discrete languages, multiliteracies, academic literacies, and identity formation as performed and negotiated in relation to powerful social and institutional discourses. The authors find the participants of the present study to be highly reflexive, knowledgeable, and skilled transnational learners, a finding that challenges pervasive discourses around multilingual learners that focus on deficit and remediation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it